Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

(Mark one)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

For the transition period from to

Commission file number 001-36020

Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(267) 759-3680

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered

Common Stock, par value $.01 per share ONTX The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐No⌧

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐No⌧

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes⌧ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes⌧ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,”, “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. Yes ☐ No ⌧

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Act). Yes ☐ No ⌧

As of June 30, 2021, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s voting stock held by non-affiliates was approximately $109.0 million, based on the last reported sale price of the registrant’s common stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market.

There were 20,895,563 shares of Common Stock outstanding as of March 1, 2022.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the definitive proxy statement for the registrant’s 2022 annual meeting of stockholders to be filed within 120 days after the end of the period covered by this annual report on Form 10-K are incorporated by reference into Part III of this annual report on Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

ONCONOVA THERAPEUTICS, INC.

INDEX TO REPORT ON FORM 10-K

Page

PART I 3

Item 1: Business 3

Item 1A: Risk Factors 30

Item 1B: Unresolved Staff Comments 43

Item 2: Properties 43

Item 3: Legal Proceedings 43

Item 4: Mine Safety Disclosures 43

Item 6: Reserved 44

Item 7A: Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 52

Item 8: Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 52

Item 9A: Controls and Procedures 52

Item 9B: Other Information 52

Item 9C: Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 53

PART III 54

Item 10: Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 54

Item 11: Executive Compensation 54

Item 14: Principal Accounting Fees and Services 54

Item 15: Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules 55

All common stock, equity, share and per share amounts have been retroactively adjusted to reflect a one-for-fifteen reverse stock split which was effective May 20, 2021.

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS AND INDUSTRY DATA

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Annual Report”) includes forward-looking statements. We may, in some cases, use terms such as “believes,” “estimates,” “anticipates,” “expects,” “plans,” “intends,” “may,” “could,” “might,” “will,” “should,” “approximately” or other words that convey uncertainty of future events or outcomes to identify these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements appear in a number of places throughout this Annual Report and include statements regarding our intentions, beliefs, projections, outlook, analyses or current expectations concerning, among other things, our ongoing and planned preclinical development and clinical trials, the timing of and our ability to make regulatory filings and obtain and maintain regulatory approvals for our product candidates, protection of our intellectual property portfolio, the degree of clinical utility of our products, particularly in specific patient populations, our ability to develop commercial and manufacturing functions, expectations regarding clinical trial data, our results of operations, cash needs, financial condition, liquidity, prospects, growth and strategies, the industry in which we operate and the trends that may affect the industry or us.

By their nature, forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties because they relate to events, competitive dynamics and industry change, and depend on the economic circumstances that may or may not occur in the future or may occur on longer or shorter timelines than anticipated. Although we believe that we have a reasonable basis for each forward-looking statement contained in this Annual Report, we caution you that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and that our actual results of operations, financial condition and liquidity, and the development of the industry in which we operate may differ materially from the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report.

You should also read carefully the factors described in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report and elsewhere to better understand the risks and uncertainties inherent in our business and underlying any forward-looking statements. As a result of these factors, actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements in this report and you should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. These factors include, without limitations, the risks related to:

● regulatory developments in the United States and foreign countries;

● the rate and degree of market acceptance of any of our product candidates;

Table of Contents

● the potential for third party disputes and litigation;

Any forward-looking statements that we make in this Annual Report speak only as of the date of such statement, and we undertake no obligation to update such statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this Annual Report or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview

Onconova Therapeutics, Inc., sometimes referred to as “we” or the “Company,” is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing novel products for patients with cancer. We have proprietary molecularly targeted agents designed to disrupt specific cellular pathways that are important for cancer cell proliferation. We believe that the product candidates in our pipeline have the potential to be efficacious in a variety of cancers with unmet medical need. We have the following two clinical-stage programs: 1. narazaciclib (ON 123300), a multi-targeted kinase inhibitor in solid tumors and hematological malignancies as a single agent or in combination with other anti-cancer therapies; and 2. rigosertib administered alone or in combination for the treatment of solid tumors. We are currently evaluating potential compounds for in-licensing opportunities.

Product Candidates / Compounds

Narazaciclib (ON 123300) — Differentiated Multi-Kinase Inhibitor Targeting CDK4/6

Pursuant to a license agreement with Temple University dated January 1, 1999 as amended March 21, 2013, we licensed compounds including our product candidate narazaciclib from Temple University. Narazaciclib is a multi-targeted kinase inhibitor targeting cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK) 2, 4, 6, and 9, AMPK related protein kinase 5 (ARK5), and colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R) at low nM concentrations as well as other tyrosine kinases believed to drive tumor cell proliferation, survival and metastasis. As an apoptotic and antiproliferative agent, narazaciclib modulates the levels and activities of regulatory proteins of the cell cycle, including cyclin D1 and inhibits retinoblastoma (Rb) protein binding. Narazaciclib inhibits cancer cell growth and suppresses deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) synthesis by preventing CDK-mediated G1-S phase transition, followed by tumor cell death by induction of mitochondria-mediated apoptosis. We believe, based on data from preclinical studies, that narazaciclib has the potential to overcome the limitations of the current generation of approved cyclin dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors. The below table depicts the half-maximal in vitro inhibitory concentration (IC50) of narazaciclib palbociclib, ribociclib and abemciclib. IC50 is a quantitative measure indicating the concentration of each drug needed to inhibit, in vitro, these listed kinases by 50%. We believe our DK inhibitor is differentiated from other agents in the market or in development due to its multi-targeted kinase inhibition profile.

Narazaciclib Palbociclib Ribociclib Abemaciclib

Sponsor Onconova Pfizer Novartis Lilly

CDK Family

Other Kinases

Source: Reaction Biology 2021

In addition to CDK 4/6, narazaciclib also inhibits ARK5 (NUAK1) with high potency with a 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) of 4.95 nM (Report EPR-123300-001 and Reddy 2014) while palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib do not. The equilibrium dissociation constant (Kd) value of narazaciclib binding to ARK5 was found to be 19 nM, while a known NUAK1 specific inhibitor (HTH-015-01) was 790 nM. In addition, using a cellular based assay that measures kinase activity in intact cells, NanoBret technology, it was determined that narazaciclib inhibited ARK5

Table of Contents

with an IC50 value of 30 nM, while 2 published inhibitors, HTH-015-01 and WZ4003, had IC50 values of >10,000 nM. ARK5 (also known as NUAK1) is a member of the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) catalytic subunit family and functions as a key regulator of cellular energy homeo-stasis (Lui 2012). ARK5 has been shown to be important in a number of cancer cell regulated survival pathways such as regulating AKT dependent cell survival, cell metabolism through c-MYC activity, tumor cell survival under oxidative stress and tumor cell migration (Faisal, 2020, Lui, 2012, Port, 2018). The combination of CDK and ARK5 inhibitors in the same molecular entity is proposed to have a differentiated effect on cancer cells by simultaneously inhibiting both cell cycle (cytostatic) and cellular metabolism (cytotoxic) pathways through CDK and ARK5, respectively.

Narazaciclib also inhibits CSF1R with IC50 values between 0.7 to 10 nM (Unpublished data and Reddy 2014). The Kd value of narazaciclib binding to CSF1R was determined to be 0.7 nM. In addition, using a cellular based assay that measures kinase activity in intact cells, NanoBret technology, it was determined that narazaciclib inhibited CSF1R with an IC50 value of 0.7 nM. The ability of narazaciclib to bind and inhibit CSF1R at low nanomolar values, in both in vitro and cell-based assays suggests that this compound may have an impact in cancers with a dependence on CSF1R signaling.

We and our partner, HanX Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (“HanX”), have initiated phase 1 dose escalation clinical studies to begin evaluating the safety, tolerability and PK of narazaciclib in order to establish a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Once we establish the RP2D, we intend to progress clinical development to determine whether the findings from preclinical studies may translate to clinical activity or potential clinical benefit in cancer patients.

In certain in vitro models, the kinase inhibitory profile of narazaciclib had high activity against CDK4, CDK6, ARK5, CSF1R, PDGFRß and PI3K-δ, all of which are associated with the growth, survival and metastasis of human tumor cells (Reddy, 2014). In an in vitro investigation of narazaciclib against a broad spectrum of human tumor cell lines, narazaciclib displayed potent antiproliferative activity, with 50% growth inhibitory concentrations (GI50) ranging from 0.02 μM to 1.5 μM. In these in vitro models, narazaciclib exhibited a broad range of activity against a wide spectrum of cell lines of both hematological origin (lymphoma, leukemia and myeloma) as well as solid tumors derived from multiple organ sites. Studies on drug-resistant human tumor cell lines suggested that narazaciclib is not a multidrug resistance gene (mdr1) substrate and may be active against drug-resistant tumor cell lines (IBv.1 2020; Reddy, 2014). The activity of narazaciclib does not appear to be affected by the overexpression of MDR-1 and induced apoptosis in both ibrutinib-sensitive and ibrutinib-resistant patient derived cells (Divakar, 2016). The ability of narazaciclib to inhibit the CDK4/6/RB1 pathway has also been shown in pre-clinical testing of mantle cell lymphoma (Divakar, 2016), multiple myeloma (Perumal, 2016), various breast cancer subtypes (Reddy 2014) and colorectal cancer (IBv.2 2022).

The effectiveness of first-generation non-selective CDK inhibitors (Selicilib/roscovitine and Alvocidib/ flavopiridol) in early trials was limited due to toxicities (Blachly 2013). Second-generation compounds (palbociclib and ribociclib) specifically inhibit CDK4 and 6, thereby inhibiting retinoblastoma (RB) protein phosphorylation. Abemaciclib is a multi-targeted kinase CDK4/6 inhibitor with low nano molar activity against CDK4/6. The second generation CDK4/6 inhibitors have substantially improved clinical outcomes for patients with hormonal-receptor (HR) positive metastatic breast cancer (Hortobagyi 2018, Sledge 2017, Finn 2016). Several CDK4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib) have been approved and are now standard of care either alone (abemaciclib) or in combination with anti-estrogen therapy for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Another CDK4/6 inhibitor has recently been approved, trilaciclib, in the supportive care space, for the prevention of myelosuppression following chemotherapy.

In December 2017, we entered into a license and collaboration agreement with HanX, a company focused on development of novel oncology products, for the further development, registration and commercialization in China of narazaciclib. Under the terms of the agreement, we received an upfront payment, and will receive regulatory and commercial milestone payments, as well as royalties on any future Chinese sales if the drug is approved. The key feature of the 2017 collaboration was that HanX provided all funding required for the Chinese Investigational New Drug Application (a “IND”) thereby enabling the studies necessary in order to seek IND approval by the National Medical Products Administration (Chinese FDA). In the fourth quarter of 2019, HanX filed an IND with the Chinese FDA which was approved on January 6, 2020. We and HanX also intended for these studies underlying the Chinese IND approval, to meet the US Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) standards for IND approval. Accordingly, such studies were used

Table of Contents

by us for an IND filing with the US FDA. In September 2020, a Phase 1 Study with narazaciclib in cancer patients was initiated in China. We maintain global rights to the study and study data outside of China.

Our IND submission to the US FDA was submitted in November 2020 and the FDA Study May Proceed letter was issued in December 2020. Enrollment into the US phase 1 study (Study 19-01) commenced in May 2021. Enrollment in the third dose cohort of the Phase 1 solid tumor study of narazaciclib is complete with no dose limiting toxicities (DLT’s) observed. The fourth dose cohort is currently ongoing. The study will assess the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of narazaciclib administered orally at increasing doses starting at 40 mg daily for consecutive 28-day cycles in patients (n=36) with relapsed/refractory advanced cancer.

In partnership with HanX, a complementary Phase 1 dose escalation study (Study HX301) for patients with advanced relapsed/refractory cancer has been initiated in China at three sites and the first patient was enrolled on September 15, 2020. In this study HX301 (narazaciclib) is dosed every day for 21 days followed by 7 days off therapy in each 28 -day cycle. In China, the first five dose cohorts have been completed. No dose limiting toxicities have been observed to date.

Collectively, once completed, these two Phase 1 studies are expected to provide preliminary safety data and the recommended Phase 2 dose and schedule for narazaciclib as a single agent.

Retinoblastoma (Rb) protein is a master regulator of cell division and is critical to several cellular processes including senescence, self-renewal, replication and apoptosis (Engel, 2015). It is believed that loss or inactivation of Rb leads to malignant cell formation and occurs in the pathogenesis of some cancers. In a preclinical Retinoblastoma (Rb) positive xenograft model for breast cancer, narazaciclib activity was shown to be similar to palbociclib (Pfizer’s Ibrance ®). Moreover, based on the same preclinical model, narazaciclib may have the potential advantage of reduced neutropenia when compared to palbociclib. Whereas both compounds resulted in decreased RBC and platelet counts in this preclinical model system, palbociclib was found to have a more prominent and statistically significant (P< 0.01) inhibitory effect on neutrophil counts when compared to narazaciclib. These results would need to be replicated in clinical trials.

In vitro studies compared the growth inhibitory activity of narazaciclib and palbociclib in breast cancer RB null cell lines, which demonstrated resistance to palbociclib while maintaining sensitivity towards narazaciclib (IBv.2 2022). Studies using mantle cell lymphoma cells indicated that narazaciclib was able to induce cell death via induction of apoptosis by inhibiting the AKT/PI3K/mTOR pathway while palbociclib treatment was only able to induce cell cycle arrest due to the inhibition of CDK4/6 (Divakar, 2016). Narazaciclib treatment was associated with the presence of several apoptotic markers (PARP, caspase 3, caspase 7 and caspase 9) and narazaciclib (but not palbociclib) led to the generation of apoptotic cells. Overall, apoptosis following narazaciclib exposure has been observed in the following cell lines: breast cancer (IBv.2 2022, Reddy, 2014), mantle cell lymphoma (Divakar, 2016), multiple myeloma (Perumal, 2016) and colorectal cancer (IBv.2 2022).

In addition to CDK4/6 and PI3 Kinase pathways, narazaciclib inhibits several other kinases in vitro including ARK5 (NUAK1) (IC50 of 4.95 nM) (IBv.2 2022, Reddy, 2014) while palbociclib does not. ARK5 is a member of the AMP -activated protein kinase (AMPK) family and is thought to function as a key regulator of cellular energy homeo-stasis (Liu, 2012) and is important in a number of cancer cell survival pathways. Overexpression of ARK5 is associated with poor prognosis in hepatocellular cancer (Cui, 2013), ovarian cancer (Phippen, 2016), colorectal cancer (Port, 2018) and glioblastoma (Lu, 2013). ARK5 is involved in the increased invasiveness, migration and metastatic potential of breast cancer cells (Chang, 2012), colorectal cancer (Kusakai, 2004), gastric cancer (Chen, 2017), and multiple myeloma (Suzuki et al., 2005). Narazaciclib inhibits ARK5 which may result in down regulation of the mTOR/MYC/RB1 pathways leading to cell cycle arrest and apoptosis.

Because ARK5 activity is now recognized as a component in promoting cancer cell migration and invasion (Kusaki, 2004) the effect of narazaciclib treatment may have an impact on cell migration and metastasis. In certain in vitro models, narazaciclib was able to inhibit the percent migration of U87 cells in a concentration- dependent manner. The time and concentrations that were tested did not result in cell death but did inhibit cell division at the higher concentrations (IBv.2 2022). The ability of narazaciclib to inhibit cell migration was compared to palbociclib using a

Table of Contents

wound healing model. Triple negative cancer cell migration was inhibited for 72 hours in the presence of narazaciclib but not in the presence of palbociclib (IBv.2 2022).

The pathogenesis and progression of a number of cancers, including breast and multiple myeloma, is linked to C-Myc (Li, 2003) which was dependent on ARK5 activity (Liu, 2012) and calcium dependent metabolism (Monteverde, 2018). The inhibition of ARK5 has been shown to be lethal in MYC overexpressing tumors (Liu, 2012, Perumal, 2016) and targeting ARK5 in the inhibitory profile of narazaciclib has the potential to overcome the emergence of resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors due to the loss of retinoblastoma function and C-Myc overexpression. Preclinical studies with tumor cell lines suggest that several malignancies including HR-positive breast cancer, colorectal carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, mantle cell lymphoma and multiple myeloma, may be clinically responsive to narazaciclib exposure (Reddy, 2014, Divakar, 2016, Perumal, 2016). Furthermore, narazaciclib has been tested in four murine xenograft models (breast cancer, colorectal cancer, mantle cell lymphoma and multiple myeloma) and was found to have on-target activity and be non-toxic to the animals (Reddy, 2014; Divakar, 2016; Perumal, 2016; and IBv.2 2022).

CSF1R is in the class III kinase receptors that include c-Kit, platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) alpha, and FLT3. CSF1R has 2 high affinity binding ligands, colony stimulating factor 1 (CSF-1), also known as macrophage colony stimulation factor (M-CSF) and interleukin 34 (IL-34). CSF-1 is important for the differentiation and proliferation of myeloid progenitor cells into macrophages, monocytes, dendritic cells, and osteoclasts. Macrophages play an important role in the pathogenesis of not only tumor growth but multiple other diseases such as inflammatory diseases and bone metabolism. High levels of CSF-1 are critical for the recruitment of tumor associated macrophages (TAMs), predominantly the immunosuppressive phenotype (M2). They are the main inflammatory immune cells in the tumor microenvironment and are involved in tumor immunosuppression, angiogenesis, invasion, and metastasis.

Overexpression of CSF-1 or CSF1R is associated with tumor aggressiveness and poor prognosis. Inhibiting the signaling pathway of CSF1R provides a method to reduce the number of M2 macrophages/TAMs within the tumor microenvironment and thus improve anti-tumor immunological therapy. Recent studies have found that CSF-1/CSF1R axis blockade can improve the efficiency of immune checkpoint inhibitors, especially programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors.

Cancer cells can lose RB function through mutation and become resistant or insensitive to palbociclib. Generally, second generation agents have not been shown to be suitable for single agent therapy and must typically be used in combination with hormonal therapy in the treatment of HR+/HER2- mBC. In addition, the rate of disease progression that occurs, especially in patients with visceral disease (Hortobagyi 2018), may benefit from the novel inhibitory effects of narazaciclib. This hypothesis needs to be proven in a clinical trial.

Unfortunately, several mechanisms of acquired resistance are emerging with the approved CDK4/6 inhibitors leading to progression in patients with HR+/HER2- mBC (Spring, 2019; Knudsen, 2020). Therefore, the unmet medical need supports development of the next (third) generation CDK4/6 inhibitors in advanced HR+/HER- mBC. The inhibitory effect of narazaciclib may provide a therapeutic strategy to optimize efficacy of CDK 4/6 inhibition and reduce the emergence of resistance and/or provide clinical benefit for patients with progression on palbociclib, ribociclib and/or abemaciclib.

We believe narazaciclib has a favorable kinase inhibitory profile in comparison to the approved CDK4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib) and may result in both tumorigenic and safety benefits (Perumal, 2016, Divakar, 2016).

Based on data from continuous dosing studies in rats and monkeys the safety profile of narazaciclib is anticipated to be better than the approved CDK4/6 inhibitors with myelosuppression and gastrointestinal toxicity being most common. Management of these adverse events is expected to follow that used for the approved CDK 4/6 inhibitors. We believe that the proposed mechanism of action of narazaciclib, the unmet medical need of the advanced cancers potentially targeted by narazaciclib and the anticipated safety profile of narazaciclib as seen in pre-clinical studies, support conducting clinical studies.

Table of Contents

Clinical development of narazaciclib for breast cancer as well as other solid tumors and hematological malignancies in clinical trials is warranted based on the preclinical in vitro studies as well as the xenograft models. Onconova plans to advance testing whether narazaciclib will demonstrate activity and/or safety in patients with advanced malignancies.

Oral Rigosertib and PD-1 Combination in KRAS-Mutated Cancers

We are currently supporting investigator-initiated studies (ISS) that are exploring the use of rigosertib for cancers driven by mutated Ras genes including a Phase 1/2a study of rigosertib in combination with a PD-1 inhibitor for patients with progressive K-Ras mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The NSCLC study is open and continues to enroll patients. The objectives of this study are to identify the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) for future studies and characterize the safety profile of the combination treatment. Final results of the Phase 1 portion of the study are expected in late 2022. On June 28, 2021, we announced an update regarding this NSCLC study, with an expansion of the trial underway at the highest dose in the current protocol. To date, one patient with a dose limiting toxicity of hyponatremia has been observed. Continued dose escalation is being considered as we believe the maximum tolerated dose has not been reached. In addition, preliminary efficacy data support the preclinical observation of rigosertib augmenting the response to checkpoint inhibition (CPI) in patients who had previously failed all standard of care treatment, including CPI. Interim data presented at the 3rd Annual RAS Targeted Drug Development Summit (September 21-23, 2021), demonstrated two partial responses and one stable disease out of seven evaluable patients, or a clinical benefit rate of 43% (3/7). The three patients with clinical benefit harbored different KRAS mutations; suggesting that patients with a variety of KRAS mutations may have the potential to respond to the novel combination including rigosertib. We believe this supports further investigation of rigosertib in combination with CPI in KRAS mutated NSCLC.

On June 17, 2021, we announced a publication in Molecular Cancer (Yan, C., Saleh, N., Yang, J. et al. Novel induction of CD40 expression by tumor cells with RAS/RAF/PI3K pathway inhibition augments response to checkpoint blockade. Mol Cancer20, 85; 2021) which demonstrated that rigosertib synergistically combined with CPI improved tumor growth inhibition and survival in a murine melanoma model that did not respond to CPI alone. It was postulated that rigosertib’s anti-cancer activity was due to its ability to reverse immunosuppressive tumor microenvironments. We believe this pre-clinical data support the clinical evaluation of rigosertib in combination with a CPI in metastatic melanoma that has progressed on CPI therapy and we expect an ISS for continued development in the area will be open for enrollment in 1H2022.

Rigosertib as Monotherapy

Based on rigosertib’s activity against another important cell cycle pathway, PLK-1 (Antanasova, 2019), a Phase 1b/2 ISS with rigosertib monotherapy in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma associated with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB-SCC) is enrolling patients. As we disclosed in December 2021 early preliminary data from an investigator-initiated Phase 2 open label trial of rigosertib monotherapy in advanced squamous cell carcinoma complicating recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB- SCC) were presented at the Austrian Society of Dermatology and Venerology Annual Conference 2021, which took place from November 25 – 27, 2021.

RDEB is an ultra-rare condition with high unmet medical need caused by a lack of type VII collagen protein expression. Type VII collagen protein is responsible for anchoring the skin’s inner layer to its outer layer, and its absence leads to extreme skin fragility and chronic wound formation in RDEB patients. Over time, many of these patients develop squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) that typically arise in areas of chronic skin wounding and inflammation. Preclinical investigations demonstrated overexpression of polo like kinase 1 (PLK1) in RDEB-associated SCC tumor cells. These tumors show a highly aggressive, early metastasizing course, making them the primary cause of death for these patients, with a cumulative risk of death of 70% and 78.7% by age 45 and 55, respectively (Mellerio, 2016), (Fine, 2016). These neoplasms show limited response rates of mostly short duration to conventional chemo- and radiotherapy as well as targeted therapy with epidermal growth factor and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (Mellerio, 2016), (Stratigos, 2020).

Data from the recent presentation are from a patient with a history of multiple, unresectable SCCs that were unresponsive to prior treatments including cemiplimab. Results showed that intravenously administered rigosertib had an acceptable safety profile and that the patient experienced sustained clinical and histological remission of all target

Table of Contents

lesions without signs of metastatic disease following 13 treatment cycles. The patient remains on study and the trial remains ongoing. The enrollment of additional patients is anticipated at sites in Salzburg, Austria; London, UK; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Though the trial’s currently available data are from only a single patient, the investigators believe they represent an encouraging finding that warrants further study. In addition, the investigators and we believe the data generated in preclinical models that suggest rigosertib’s activity against PLK1 have now been preliminarily supported in the clinic, and suggest that rigosertib may play a role in other more common cancers driven by PLK1.

Rare Disease Program in “RASopathies”

Based on the mechanism of action data published in the journal Cell in 2016, we initiated a collaborative development program focusing on a group of rare diseases with a well- defined molecular basis in expression or defects involving the Ras effector pathways. Since RASopathies are rare congenital diseases affecting young children, we embarked on a multifaceted collaborative program involving patient advocacy, government and academic organizations. RASopathies are usually caused by germline mutations in genes that alter the RAS subfamily and mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK) that control signal transduction and are among the most common genetic syndromes. Together, this group of diseases can impact more than 1 in 1,000 individuals, according to RASopathies.Net.

The NCI has conducted preclinical studies with cell lines from two pediatric solid tumors (rhabdomyosarcoma and neuroblastoma), including xenograft models. For both tumor cell lines, in vitro rigosertib exposure was associated with reduced cell viability associated with destabilization of microtubules, mitotic arrest and apoptosis. In a rhabdomyosarcoma xenograft model, rigosertib treatment delayed time to tumor progression and prolonged survival in the animals treated with rigosertib. (Kowalczyk, 2020)

Programs Discontinued During 2020

Through August 2020, our efforts had been primarily focused on our product candidate, rigosertib, for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (“MDS”). Rigosertib has been tested in an intravenous formulation as a single agent for patients with relapsed/refractory higher-risk MDS (“HR-MDS”), and an oral formulation as a single agent in lower risk MDS or in combination with azacitidine for patients with newly diagnosed or refractory HR-MDS.

On August 24, 2020, we announced topline results from the INSPIRE trial, which assessed the efficacy and safety of IV rigosertib in HR-MDS patients. The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of improved survival for patients randomized to IV rigosertib compared to the control arm. Based on the results of the INSPIRE trial and the previously conducted ONTIME Phase 3 trial, we currently do not plan to further pursue rigosertib for treating HR-MDS.

Research and Development

Since commencing operations, we have dedicated a significant portion of our resources to the development of our clinical-stage product candidates, particularly rigosertib and more recently narazacicib. We incurred research and development expenses of $7.3 million and $16.9 million during the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. We anticipate that a significant portion of our operating expenses will continue to be related to research and development.

Collaboration and License Agreements

HanX Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (narazaciclib Agreement)

In December 2017, we entered into a license and collaboration agreement with HanX, a company focused on development of novel oncology products, for the further development, registration and commercialization in Greater China of narazaciclib. We believe narazaciclib has the potential to overcome limitations of current generation CDK 4/6 inhibitors. Under the terms of the agreement, we received an upfront payment, and will receive regulatory and commercial milestone payments, as well as royalties on Chinese sales. The key feature of the collaboration is that HanX

Table of Contents

provides all funding required for Chinese IND enabling studies performed for Chinese health authority IND approval. The Chinese IND was approved in January 2020. We and HanX also intended for these studies to comply with the FDA standards. Accordingly, such studies were used by us for an IND filing with the FDA in November 2020. The FDA Study May Proceed letter was received in December 2020. Drug product for the US study was manufactured in North America and stability data was submitted as part of the IND. We maintain global rights to narazaciclib outside of China.

SymBio Pharmaceuticals Limited

In July 2011, we entered into a license agreement with SymBio Pharmaceuticals Limited (“Symbio”), as subsequently amended, granting SymBio an exclusive, royalty-bearing license for the development and commercialization of rigosertib in Japan and Korea. Under the SymBio license agreement, SymBio is obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and obtain market approval for rigosertib inside the licensed territory and we have similar obligations outside of the licensed territory. We have also entered into an agreement with SymBio providing for the Company to supply SymBio with development-stage product. Under the SymBio license agreement, we also agreed to supply commercial product to SymBio under specified terms that will be included in a commercial supply agreement to be negotiated prior to the first commercial sale of rigosertib. The supply of development-stage product and the supply of commercial product will be at our cost plus a defined profit margin. We have additionally granted SymBio a right of first negotiation to license or obtain the rights to develop and commercialize compounds having a chemical structure similar to rigosertib in the licensed territory.

Under the terms of the SymBio license agreement, we received an upfront payment of $7,500,000. In addition, we could receive regulatory, development and sales-based milestone payments as well as royalty payments at percentage rates ranging from the mid-teens to 20% based on net sales of rigosertib by SymBio.

Royalties will be payable under the SymBio agreement on a country- by-country basis in the licensed territory, until the later of the expiration of marketing exclusivity in those countries, a specified period of time after first commercial sale of rigosertib in such country, or the expiration of all valid claims of the licensed patents covering rigosertib or the manufacture or use of rigosertib in such country. If no valid claim exists covering the composition of matter of rigosertib or the use of or treatment with rigosertib in a particular country before the expiration of the royalty term, and specified competing products achieve a specified market share percentage in such country, SymBio’s obligation to pay us royalties will continue at a reduced royalty rate until the end of the royalty term. In addition, the applicable royalties payable to us may be reduced if SymBio is required to pay royalties to third -parties for licenses to intellectual property rights necessary to develop, use, manufacture or commercialize rigosertib in the licensed territory. The license agreement with SymBio will remain in effect until the expiration of the royalty term. However, the SymBio license agreement may be terminated earlier due to the uncured material breach or bankruptcy of a party, or force majeure. If SymBio terminates the license agreement in these circumstances, its licenses to rigosertib will survive, subject to SymBio’s milestone and royalty obligations, which SymBio may elect to defer and offset against any damages that may be determined to be due from us. In addition, we may terminate the license agreement in the event that SymBio brings a challenge against it in relation to the licensed patents, and SymBio may terminate the license agreement without cause by providing us with written notice a specified period of time in advance of termination. The upfront payment is being recognized ratably through December 2037, the expected term of the agreement. We recognize revenues related to the supply agreement with SymBio when control of the product is transferred to Symbio. Revenues related to the supply agreement were $0 and $5,000 for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

SymBio has conducted phase 1 trials with IV and oral rigosertib in Japan at their own expense. SymBio also participated in the INSPIRE trial by enrolling patients in Japan. For all rigosertib trials conducted by SymBio, we supply clinical trial supplies and provide other assistance as requested.

Pint International SA

In March 2018, we entered into a License, Development and Commercialization Agreement (the “Pint License Agreement”) with Pint International SA (which, together with its affiliate Pint Pharma GmbH, are collectively referred to as “Pint”). Under the terms of the Pint License Agreement, we granted Pint an exclusive, royalty-bearing license, with the right to sublicense, under certain Company patent rights and know-how to develop and commercialize any

Table of Contents

pharmaceutical product (the “Pint Licensed Product”) containing rigosertib in all uses of rigosertib or the Product in humans in Latin America countries (the “Pint Territory,” including Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, French Guiana, British Guiana, Suriname, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela).

Pint agreed to make an upfront equity investment and a subsequent equity investment in our common stock. In addition, we could receive regulatory, development and sales-based milestone payments as well as tiered, double digit royalties based on aggregate net sales in the Pint Territory. Pint and the Company have also agreed to enter into a supply agreement providing for Pint purchasing rigosertib and the Pint Licensed Product from the Company within 90 days of the FDA approval of a New Drug Application (“NDA”) for the Pint Licensed Product.

Under the terms of the Pint Securities Purchase Agreement, Pint agreed to make an upfront equity investment in the Company at a specified premium to the Company’s share price. Pursuant to the Pint Securities Purchase Agreement, closing of the upfront equity investment occurred on April 4, 2018 and Pint purchased 54,463 shares of common stock for $1,250,000. The total amount of the premium was $319,000 and this amount was allocated to the license.

Pint may terminate the Pint License Agreement in whole (but not in part) at any time upon 45 days’ prior written notice. The Pint License Agreement also contains customary provisions for termination by either party in the event of breach of the Pint License Agreement by the other party, subject to a cure period, or bankruptcy of the other party.

Knight Therapeutics, Inc.

In November 2019, we entered into a Distribution, License and Supply Agreement (the “Knight License Agreement”) with Knight Therapeutics Inc. (“Knight”). Under the terms of the License Agreement, we granted Knight (i) a non-exclusive, royalty-bearing license, with the right to sublicense, under certain Company patent rights and know-how to develop and manufacture any product (the “Knight Licensed Product”) containing rigosertib for Canada (and Israel should Knight exercise its option) (the “Knight Territory”) and in human uses (the “Knight Licensed Field”), and (ii) an exclusive, royalty-bearing license, with the right to sublicense, under certain Company patent rights and know-how to commercialize the Knight Licensed Product in the Knight Territory and in the Knight Licensed Field.

Knight has also agreed to obtain from us all of Knight’s requirements of the Knight Licensed Products for the Knight Territory, and we have agreed to supply Knight with all of its requirements of the Knight Licensed Products. We may, at our discretion, use the services of a contract manufacturer to manufacture and package the Knight Licensed Products.

In addition, we have granted Knight an exclusive right of first refusal with respect to all or any part of the Knight Territory, to store, market, promote, sell, offer for sale and/or distribute any ROFR Products. As used in the Knight License Agreement, “ROFR Products” means all products other than the Knight Licensed Product that are owned, licensed, or controlled by us as of the effective date of the Knight License Agreement and all improvements thereto.

We are eligible to receive clinical, regulatory, and sale-based milestone payments as well as tiered, double-digit royalties based on net sales in the Knight Territory.

The License Agreement is for a term of 15 years from the launch on a country by country basis in the Territory and contains customary provisions for termination by either party in the event of breach of the License Agreement by the other party (subject to a cure period), bankruptcy of the other party, or challenges to the patents by any sublicensee or assignee.

Specialised Therapeutics Asia Pte. Ltd.

In December 2019, we entered into a Distribution, License and Supply Agreement (the “STA License Agreement”) with Specialised Therapeutics Asia Pte. Ltd. (“STA”). Under the terms of the License Agreement, we granted STA (i) a non-exclusive, royalty-bearing license, with the right to sublicense, under certain Company patent rights and know-how to develop and manufacture any product (the “STA Licensed Product”) containing rigosertib for Australia and New

Table of Contents

Zealand (the “STA Territory”) and in human uses (the “STA Licensed Field”), and (ii) an exclusive, royalty-bearing license, with the right to sublicense, under certain Company patent rights and know-how to commercialize the STA Licensed Product in the STA Territory and in the STA Licensed Field.

STA has also agreed to obtain from us all of its requirements of the STA Licensed Products for the STA Territory, and we have agreed to supply STA with all of its requirements of the STA Licensed Products. We may, at our discretion, use the services of a contract manufacturer to manufacture and package the STA Licensed Products.

We are eligible to receive clinical, regulatory, and sale-based milestone payments as well as tiered, double-digit royalties based on net sales in the STA Territory.

The STA License Agreement is for a term of 15 years from the launch on a country by country basis in the STA Territory and contains customary provisions for termination by either party in the event of breach of the STA License Agreement by the other party (subject to a cure period), bankruptcy of the other party, or challenges to the patents by any sublicensee or assignee.

HanX Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (terminated rigosertib agreement)

In May 2019, we entered into a License and Collaboration Agreement (the “HanX rigosertib License Agreement”) with HanX . Under the terms of the HanX rigosertib License Agreement, we granted HanX an exclusive, royalty-bearing license, with the right to sublicense, under certain Company patent rights and know-how to develop and commercialize any pharmaceutical product (the “HanX Licensed Product”) containing rigosertib in all uses of rigosertib or the HanX Licensed Product in humans therapeutics uses in the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan (the “HanX Territory”). In connection with the HanX rigosertib License Agreement, we also entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement with each of HanX and Abundant New Investments Ltd. (“Abundant”), an affiliate of HanX (each, a “Securities Purchase Agreement” and together, the “HanX Securities Purchase Agreements”).

HanX did not fulfill its obligations under the HanX rigosertib License Agreement and effective January 16, 2020, in accordance with the terms of the HanX rigosertib License Agreement, the HanX License Agreement was deemed to be void ab initio. Upon this termination, the rights to HanX Licensed Product in the HanX Territory reverted to us in accordance with the terms of the HanX rigosertib License Agreement.

In addition, the HanX Securities Purchase Agreements terminated automatically effective January 16, 2020 upon the termination of the HanX rigosertib License Agreement in accordance with the HanX Securities Purchase Agreements.

Intellectual Property

Patents and Proprietary Rights

Our intellectual property is derived through our internal research, licensing agreements with Temple University, or Temple, and licensing research agreements with the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, or Mount Sinai.

License Agreement with Temple University

In January 1999, we entered into a license agreement with Temple as subsequently amended, to obtain an exclusive, world-wide license to certain Temple patents and technical information to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale and import several classes of novel compounds.

Under the terms of the license agreement, we paid Temple a non-refundable up-front payment, and are required to pay annual license maintenance fees, as well as a low single-digit percentage of net sales as a royalty. In addition, we agreed to pay Temple 25% of any consideration received from any sublicensee of the licensed Temple patents and technical information, which does not include any royalties on sales, funds received for research and development or proceeds from any equity or debt investment.

Table of Contents

The license agreement with Temple can be terminated by mutual agreement or due to the material breach or bankruptcy of either party. We may terminate the license agreement for any reason by giving Temple prior written notice.

Research Agreement with Mount Sinai School of Medicine

In May 2010, we entered into a research agreement with Mount Sinai. The agreement expired in June 2020 and was not renewed. This agreement is described in more detail under the caption “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions — Research Agreement.”

Narazaciclib Patents

As of March 2022, we owned or exclusively licensed issued patents and pending patent applications covering composition of matter, formulation and various indications for method-of-use for narazaciclib filed worldwide, including in the United States. The U.S. composition-of-matter patent for narazaciclib expires in 2031. We have recently filed new patent applications covering methods of treatment in target indications that are projected to extend to 2042 before any possible patent term extensions. Patent term extensions may be available, depending on various provisions in the law.

Rigosertib Patents

As of March 2022, we owned or exclusively licensed issued patents and pending patent applications covering composition-of-matter, process, formulation and various indications for method-of-use for rigosertib filed worldwide, including in the United States. The U.S. composition-of-matter patent for rigosertib, which we in-licensed pursuant to the license agreement with Temple, currently expires in 2026. A U.S. method of treatment patent for rigosertib, which we also in-licensed from Temple, expires in 2025. A patent covering the use of rigosertib in combination with anticancer agents including azacitidine is issued and will expire in 2028. The novel formulation patent for rigosertib expires in 2037. We have recently filed new patent applications covering methods of treatment in target indications that are projected to extend to 2042 before any possible patent term extensions. Patent term extensions may be available, depending on various provisions in the law.

General Considerations

As with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, our ability to maintain and solidify a proprietary position for our product candidates will depend upon our success in obtaining effective patent claims and enforcing those claims once granted.

Our commercial success will depend in part upon not infringing upon the proprietary rights of third parties. It is uncertain whether the issuance of any third-party patent would require us to alter our development or commercial strategies, or our product candidates or processes, obtain licenses or cease certain activities. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. If a third party commences a patent infringement action against us, or our collaborators, it could consume significant financial and management resources, regardless of the merit of the claims or the outcome of the litigation.

The term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may be eligible for additional patent term extension, which provides patent term restoration to account for the patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is determined based upon the time from the IND effective date to the NDA submission date, and the time from NDA submission date and the eventual application approval, as further described below. Patent extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our pharmaceutical products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those products.

Table of Contents

Furthermore, we may be able to obtain extension of patent term by adjustment of the said term under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 154 if the issue of an original patent is delayed due to the failure of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. For example, we have received adjustments of 1,139 days extension to the patent term for the rigosertib composition of matter patent (US 7,598,232), 1,155 days extension for the patent covering the process for making rigosertib (US 8,143,453) and 751 days extension for rigosertib formulation patent (US 8,063,109) under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §154.

In addition to patents, we rely upon unpatented trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain a competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, through confidentiality agreements with our employees, collaborators, contractors and consultants, and invention assignment agreements with our employees. We also have agreements requiring assignment of inventions with selected consultants and collaborators. The confidentiality agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of agreements or clauses requiring invention assignment, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through a relationship with a third party.

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. While we believe that our development experience and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from both large and small pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. There are a number of pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, public and private universities and research organizations actively engaged in the research and development of products that may compete with our products. Many of these companies are multinational pharmaceutical or biotechnology organizations, which are pursuing the development of, or are currently marketing, pharmaceuticals that target the key oncology indications or cellular pathways on which we are focused.

It is probable that the increasing incidence and prevalence of cancer will lead to many more companies seeking to develop products and therapies for the treatment of unmet needs in oncology. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical and human resources than we have. Many of our competitors also have a significant advantage with respect to experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, as well as obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products and the commercialization of those products. We anticipate intense and increasing competition as new drugs enter the market and as more advanced technologies become available. Our success will be based in part on our ability to identify, develop and manage a portfolio of drugs that are safer and more effective than competing products in the treatment of cancer patients.

There are several ongoing clinical trials aimed at expanding the use of approved chemotherapeutic and immunomodulatory agents in the diseases we are studying, as well as several new clinical programs testing novel technologies. Companies with marketed CDK 4/6 inhibitors in the metastatic breast cancer space include Pfizer (palbociclib), Novartis (ribociclib) and Eli Lilly (abemacicilib).

Manufacturing

Our product candidates are synthetic small molecules. Manufacturing activities must comply with FDA current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, regulations. We conduct our manufacturing activities under individual purchase orders with third-party contract manufacturers (“CMOs”). We have quality agreements in place with our key CMOs. We have also established an internal quality management organization, which audits and qualifies CMOs in the United States and abroad.

We believe that the manufacturing processes for the active pharmaceutical ingredient and finished drug products for our products are being developed to adequately support future development and commercial demands. If manufacturing challenges occur, they are thoroughly reviewed and, as may be required, reported to health authorities to determine whether the product can be used for clinical trials.

The FDA regulates and inspects equipment, facilities and processes used in manufacturing pharmaceutical products prior to approval. If we or CMOs fail to comply with applicable cGMP requirements and conditions of product approval,

Table of Contents

the FDA may seek sanctions, including fines, civil penalties, injunctions, suspension of manufacturing operations, operating restrictions, withdrawal of FDA approval, refusal to approve applications, seizure or recall of products and criminal prosecution. Although we periodically monitor the FDA compliance of our third-party CMOs, we cannot be certain that our present or future third-party CMOs will consistently comply with cGMP and other applicable FDA regulatory requirements.

Commercial Operations

We do not currently have an organization for the sales, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products. We may rely on licensing and co-promotion agreements with strategic partners for the commercialization of our products in the United States and other territories. If we choose to build a commercial infrastructure to support marketing in the United States, such commercial infrastructure could be expected to include a targeted, oncology sales force supported by sales management, internal sales support, an internal marketing group and distribution support. To develop the appropriate commercial infrastructure internally, we would have to invest significant financial and management resources.

Government Regulation

As a pharmaceutical company that operates in the United States, we are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA, and other federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDC Act, and its implementing regulations set forth, among other things, requirements for the research, testing, development, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, approval, labeling, storage, record keeping, reporting, distribution, import, export, advertising, marketing, and promotion of our products. FDA also has issued a growing body of guidance documents that provide the agency’s interpretation of regulatory requirements, including a number of guidance documents to assist companies navigating COVID-19, product development, and manufacturing.

Although the discussion below focuses on regulation in the United States, we and/or our partners anticipate seeking approval for, and marketing of, our products in other countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of approval and regulation in Europe are addressed in a centralized way through the EMA, but country-specific regulation remains essential in many respects and enforcement is generally through EU member state authorities. The process of obtaining regulatory marketing approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources and may not be successful. In addition, approval in the United States does not automatically result in approval in the European Union or elsewhere.

United States Government Regulation

The FDA is the main regulatory body that controls pharmaceuticals in the United States, and its regulatory authority is based in the FDC Act. Pharmaceutical products are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes. A failure to comply explicitly with any requirements during the product development, approval, or post-approval periods, may lead to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the imposition by the FDA or an institutional review board, or IRB, or Independent Ethics Committee (IEC) of a hold on clinical trials, refusal to approve pending marketing applications or supplements, withdrawal of approval, warning letters, untitled letters, cyber letters, product recalls, product seizures or detention, prohibition on importing or exporting, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties, adverse publicity, disgorgement, restitution, FDA debarment, debarment from government contracting or refusal of future orders under existing contracts, exclusion from Federal healthcare programs, corporate integrity agreements, consent decrees, or criminal prosecution.

The steps required before a new drug may be marketed in the United States generally include:

Table of Contents

● Submission to the FDA of an IND to support human clinical testing;

● Submission of a NDA to the FDA;

● Satisfactory completion of an FDA Advisory Committee review, if applicable;

● FDA review and approval of the NDA.

Preclinical and Clinical Trials

The testing and approval process of product candidates requires substantial time, effort, and financial resources. Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity, and novelty of the product or disease. Product development typically begins with preclinical studies. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of chemistry, pharmacology, toxicity, and product formulation, as well as animal studies to assess potential safety and efficacy. Such studies must generally be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s GLPs.

Prior to commencing the first clinical trial with a product candidate, an IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests and preclinical literature, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature, and proposed clinical study protocols among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational drug product to humans. This authorization is required before interstate shipping and administration of any new drug product to humans that is not the subject of an approved NDA. A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA has neither commented on nor questioned the IND within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational drug to patients under the supervision of qualified investigators following GCPs, an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators and monitors. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols that detail the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the efficacy criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. The informed written consent of each participating subject is required. The clinical investigation of an investigational drug is generally divided into three phases. Although the phases are usually conducted sequentially, they may overlap or be combined. The three phases of an investigation are as follows:

Table of Contents

Additional kinds of data may also help support an NDA, such as patient experience data and real world evidence. Real world evidence may be used to assist in clinical trial design or support an NDA for already approved products.

The decision to terminate development of an investigational drug product may be made by either a health authority body, such as the FDA or IRB/independent ethics committees (“IECs”), or by a company for various reasons. An IRB approves the initiation of a clinical trial and supervises the conduct of the trial to ensure that the risks to human subjects are reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits and that there are adequate human subject protections in place. The FDA may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, or impose other sanctions, if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. In some cases, clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor. This group provides guidance on whether or not a trial may or should move forward at designated check points. These decisions are based on the limited access to data from the ongoing trial. The suspension or termination of development can occur during any phase of clinical trials if it is determined that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk, if the product candidate does not show sufficient evidence of efficacy, if the development program does not comply with applicable regulatory requirements, or due to changing sponsor business objectives.

In addition, there are various reporting requirements that clinical trial sponsors and investigators must comply with during the course of a clinical trial. For instance, there are requirements for the registration of ongoing clinical trials of drugs on public registries and the disclosure of certain information pertaining to the trials as well as clinical trial results after completion. Sponsors must also make annual reports to FDA concerning the progress of their clinical trial programs as well as more frequent reports for certain serious adverse events. Sponsors must submit a protocol for each clinical trial, and any subsequent protocol amendments to FDA and the applicable IRBs. IRBs must also receive information concerning unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects. Investigators must further provide certain information to the clinical trial sponsors to allow the sponsors to make certain financial disclosures to the FDA. Moreover, under the 21st Century Cures Act, manufacturers or distributors of investigational drugs for the diagnosis, monitoring, or treatment of one or more serious diseases or conditions must have a publicly available policy concerning expanded access to investigational drugs.

Further, the manufacture of investigational drugs for the conduct of human clinical trials is subject to cGMP requirements. Investigational drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients imported into the United States are also subject to regulation by the FDA relating to their labeling and distribution. Further, the export of investigational drug products outside of the United States is subject to regulatory requirements of the receiving country as well as U.S. export requirements under the FDC Act.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the product candidate as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency, and purity of the final product.

Table of Contents

Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, detailed investigational drug product information is submitted to the FDA in the form of a NDA to request market approval for the product in specified indications.

New Drug Applications

In order to obtain approval to market a drug in the United States, a marketing application must be submitted to the FDA that provides data establishing the safety and effectiveness of the drug product for the proposed indication. The application includes all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA.

In most cases, the NDA must be accompanied by a substantial user fee; there may be some instances in which the user fee is waived. The FDA will initially review the NDA for completeness before it accepts the NDA for filing. The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. After the NDA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs. For new molecular entities, or NMEs, FDA has the goal of completing its review within ten months of the application’s acceptance for filing. This, however, is just a goal, and the review time may take longer. For instance, the FDA can extend this review by three months to consider certain late-submitted information or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission. Additionally, this review period may change as the PDUFA statute must be reauthorized by Congress by September 2022.

The FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP. The FDA may refer applications for novel drug products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. For drugs for which no active ingredient (including any ester or salt of active ingredients) has previously been approved by the FDA, the FDA must refer the drug to an advisory committee or provide in an action letter, a summary of the reasons why the FDA did not refer the product candidate to an advisory committee. Product candidates may also be referred to advisory committees for other reasons. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. After the FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application is not ready for approval. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application, including additional clinical trials. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either: resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter; withdraw the application; or request an opportunity for a hearing. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

Table of Contents

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. As a condition of NDA approval, the FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the drug. Moreover, product approval may require substantial post-approval testing, clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the drug’s safety or efficacy. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement before the change can be implemented. An NDA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing NDAs, including the imposition of user fees for certain supplements.

Advertising and Promotion

The FDA and other federal regulatory agencies closely regulate the marketing and promotion of drugs through, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet. A product cannot be commercially promoted before it is approved. After approval, product promotion can include only those claims relating to safety and effectiveness that are consistent with the labeling approved by the FDA. Healthcare providers are permitted to prescribe drugs for “off-label” uses — that is, uses not approved by the FDA and therefore not described in the drug’s labeling — because the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. However, FDA regulations impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label uses. Broadly speaking, a manufacturer may not promote a drug for off-label use, but may engage in non-promotional, balanced communication regarding off-label use under specified conditions. Failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements and restrictions in this area may subject a company to adverse publicity and enforcement action by the FDA, the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products.

Post-Approval Regulations

After regulatory approval of a drug is obtained, a company is required to comply with a number of post-approval requirements. For example, as a condition of approval of an NDA, the FDA may require post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization. Regulatory approval of oncology products often requires that patients in clinical trials be followed for long periods to determine the overall survival benefit of the drug. In addition, as a holder of an approved NDA, a company would be required to report adverse reactions and production problems to the FDA, to provide updated safety and efficacy information, and to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling for any of its products. Further, under the Drug Quality and Security Act, manufacturers have obligations concerning the tracking and tracing of drug products, as well as the investigation and reporting of suspect and illegitimate products. Also, quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to cGMP after approval to assure and preserve the long-term stability of the drug product. Manufacturing facilities must be registered with FDA and marketed drug products must be listed. Sponsors are also subject to annual program fees, though there may be some exemptions. The FDA periodically inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMP, which imposes extensive procedural and substantive record keeping requirements. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon a company and any third-party manufacturers that a company may decide to use.

Table of Contents

Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our product candidates. Future FDA and state inspections may identify compliance issues at our facilities or at the facilities of our contract manufacturers that may disrupt production or distribution, or require substantial resources to correct. In addition, discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable requirements may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA, including withdrawal or recall of the product from the market or other voluntary, FDA-initiated or judicial action that could delay or prohibit further marketing.

Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures, such as risk evaluation and mitigation strategies and phase 4 studies. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development or result in additional post-approval requirements.

After a product is approved for commercial sale, in addition to marketing and promotion restrictions, manufacturers are subject to federal and state laws and regulations requiring them to report certain pricing data, transactions with medical professionals, and similar information. Manufacturers participating in federal health care programs are also required to provide statutorily mandated discounts and rebates.

FDA post-approval requirements are continually evolving. For example, in March 2020, the U.S. Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, which includes various provisions regarding FDA drug shortage and manufacturing volume reporting requirements, as well as provisions regarding supply chain security, such as risk management plan requirements, and the promotion of supply chain redundancy and domestic manufacturing. As part of the CARES Act implementation, the FDA recently issued a guidance on the reporting of the volume of drugs produced, which reporting will require additional administrative efforts by drug manufacturers.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the FDC Act

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent whose claims cover the applicant’s product or method of using the product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential competitors in support of approval of an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA or 505(b)(2) application. In an effort to clarify which patents must be listed in the Orange Book, in January 2021, Congress passed the Orange Book Transparency Act of 2020, which largely codifies FDA’s existing practices into the FDCA.

An ANDA provides for marketing of a generic drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown through bioequivalence testing to be therapeutically equivalent to the listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are not required to conduct, or submit results of, pre-clinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug, and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug. 505(b)(2) applications provide for marketing of a drug product that may have the same active ingredients as the listed drug and contain the same full safety and effectiveness data as an NDA, but at least some of the information comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant. 505(b)(2) applicants may rely on published literature or FDA’s prior finding of safety and effectiveness for an NDA approved drug product. The ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product referenced in the marketing application in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired;

Table of Contents

(iii) the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant may also elect to submit a statement certifying that its proposed label does not contain (or carves out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent. If the applicant does not challenge or carve out the listed patents, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application approval will not be made effective until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from making an approval of the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application effective until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA or 505(b)(2) applicant, or such shorter or longer period as may be determined by a court.

The ANDA or 505(b)(2) application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity has expired.

Recently, Congress, the Administration, and administrative agencies have taken certain measures to increase drug competition and thus, decrease drug prices. For example, measures have been proposed and implemented to facilitate product importation. Congress also passed a bill requiring sponsors of NDA approved products to provide sufficient quantities of drug product on commercially reasonable market-based terms to entities developing generic and similar drug products. This bill also included provisions on shared and individual REMS for generic drug products.

Exclusivity

Upon NDA approval of a new chemical entity, or NCE, which is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other NDA, that drug receives five years of marketing exclusivity during which the FDA cannot receive any ANDA or a 505(b)(2) application for the same active moiety. Certain changes to a drug, such as the addition of a new indication to the package insert, may be associated with a three-year period of exclusivity during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA for a generic drug or a 505(b)(2) application that includes the change, if the applicant conducted clinical trials essential to the approval of the application, which are not bioavailability or bioequivalence studies. Such exclusivity in the EU under a broadly equivalent regime is ten years.

An ANDA or a 505(b)(2) application may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification is filed.

Patent Term Extension

After NDA approval, owners of relevant drug patents may apply for up to a five year patent extension of a single unexpired patent, that has not previously been extended. The allowable patent term extension is calculated as half of the drug’s testing phase — the time between IND application and NDA submission — and all of the review phase — the time between NDA submission and approval up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue approval with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years from the date of approval. Similar extension rules apply in the EU.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and

Table of Contents

fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Europe and Other International Government Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Some countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application, or CTA, much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In Europe, for example, a CTA must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee (IEC), much like the FDA and IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed. With the Clinical Trials Regulation (EC) 536/2014 in force since January 31, 2022, it is now possible to make a single application for a cross-border trial within the EU through an EU clinical trial portal. With the departure of the United Kingdom (“UK”) from the EU, trials in the UK have to be approved through the portal and a separate application will need to be made to the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Additionally, in the EU there is an increasing move to transparency of trial summary reports and the above Clinical Trial Regulation will include a publicly accessible database of data and information submitted in accordance with this regulation. Companies’ submitting data will need to justify why it should be kept confidential.

To obtain regulatory approval to commercialize a new drug under European Union regulatory systems, we must submit a marketing authorization application, or MAA. The MAA is comparable to the NDA.

For other countries outside of the European Union, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Expanded Access

Under certain circumstances, regulators may permit unapproved drugs to be used by patients outside of clinical trials. In the U.S., with FDA approval, manufacturers may provide investigational drugs to patients with serious or immediately life threatening diseases for which there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapies. To qualify for U.S. expanded access, the potential benefit must justify the potential risks and the potential risks must not be unreasonable. Providing the investigational drug must also not interfere with product development. There are additional qualifying criteria depending on the number of patients in the expanded access program, and the expanded access sponsor and investigator must comply with FDA’s regulations. U.S. law also permits treatment access to certain investigational drugs under the federal Right to Try law, which permits manufacturers to provide investigational drugs to patients with a life-threatening disease or condition, who have exhausted all approved treatment options, who cannot participate in a clinical trial of the drug, and who provides informed consent. Certain reports must be submitted to FDA under the federal Right to Try. There are also state level Right to Try statutes.

In the European Union, early access programs are authorized by EU legislation and, through national laws, EU member states have implemented regulatory requirements related to these programs. National competent authorities may authorize early access program use. In both the EU and U.S. unapproved drug products may not be promoted or marketed.

Compliance

During all phases of development (pre- and post-marketing), failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the imposition by the FDA or an institutional review board, or IRB, of a hold on clinical trials, refusal to approve pending marketing applications or supplements, withdrawal of approval, warning letters, untitled letters, cyber letters, product recalls, product seizures or

Table of Contents

detention, prohibition on importing or exporting, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties, adverse publicity, disgorgement, restitution, FDA debarment, debarment from government contracting or refusal of future orders under existing contracts, exclusion from Federal healthcare programs, corporate integrity agreements, consent decrees, or criminal prosecution. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Other Special Regulatory Procedures

Orphan Drug Designation

The FDA may grant Orphan Drug Designation to drugs intended to treat a rare disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or, if the disease or condition affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the drug would be recovered from sales in the United States. Additionally, sponsors must present a plausible hypothesis for clinical superiority to obtain orphan designation if there is a product already approved by the FDA that is intended for the same indication and that is considered by the FDA to be the same as the already approved product. This hypothesis must be demonstrated to obtain orphan exclusivity. In the European Union, the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, or COMP, grants Orphan Drug Designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union. Additionally, designation is granted for products intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition and when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the European Union would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug.

In the United States, Orphan Drug Designation entitles a party to financial incentives, such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs for certain kinds of studies, tax credits for certain research and user fee waivers under certain circumstances. Under the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress expanded the potential opportunities for grant funding to include additional kinds of studies. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, however, reduced the available tax credits for orphan products. In addition, if a product receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has orphan designation, the product is entitled to seven years of market exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application for the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the FDA from approving a different drug for the same disease or condition, or the same drug for a different disease or condition.

In the European Union, Orphan Drug Designation also entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and ten years of market exclusivity is granted following drug approval. This period may be reduced to six years if the Orphan Drug Designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity or where the holder of the marketing authorization for the original orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities of the medicinal product. As with the FDA, orphan drug exclusivity does not prevent the EMA from approving a second medicinal product where such the second medicinal product, although similar to the orphan medicinal product already authorized, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior.

Orphan drug designation must be requested before submission of an application for marketing approval. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

Priority Review (United States), Accelerated Review (European Union) and other Expedited Programs

The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track designation, accelerated approval, priority review and breakthrough designation, that are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of certain drug products that are intended for the treatment of serious or life threatening diseases or conditions, and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs or present a significant improvement over existing therapy.

Table of Contents

The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures.

To be eligible for a Fast Track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if the product will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy, safety, or public health factors. If Fast Track designation is obtained, drug sponsors may be eligible for more frequent development meetings and correspondence with the FDA. In addition, the FDA may initiate review of sections of an NDA before the application is complete. This “rolling review” is available if the applicant provides and the FDA approves a schedule for the remaining information.

Based on results of one or more Phase 3 clinical trials submitted in an NDA, upon the request of an applicant, a priority review designation may be granted to a product by the FDA, which sets the target date for FDA action on the application at six months from FDA filing, or eight months from the sponsor’s submission. Priority review is given to drugs intended to treat serious conditions and which, if approved would provide significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of the serious condition. If criteria are not met for priority review, the standard FDA review period is ten months from FDA filing, or 12 months from sponsor submission. Priority review designation does not change the scientific/medical standard for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval.

Moreover, under the provisions of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, enacted in 2012, a sponsor can request designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy.” A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies are eligible for the Fast Track designation features as described above, intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program beginning as early as Phase 1 trials, and a commitment from the FDA to involve senior managers and experienced review staff in a proactive collaborative, cross-disciplinary review.

In addition, products for treating serious or life threatening conditions and that provide a meaningful advantage over available therapies may be eligible for accelerated approval and may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the drug product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, FDA will require a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval to perform post-marketing studies to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoints. The drug may be subject to accelerated withdrawal procedures if such studies do not verify the product’s clinical benefit or other evidence shows a lack of safety or efficacy. Promotional materials for products approved via the accelerated approval pathway must be submitted to FDA prior to initial distribution. Such products may also be subject to distribution or use restrictions, if FDA determines that restrictions are needed to assure safe use. Moreover, in recent years, the accelerated approval pathway has come under significant FDA and public scrutiny. Accordingly, depending on the results of our studies, FDA may be more conservative in granting accelerated approval or, if granted, may be more apt to withdrawal approval if clinical benefit is not confirmed.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

Under the Centralized Procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application is 210 days (excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products of Human Use, or CHMP). On average, an approval is provided by the European Commission after approximately 15 months.

Table of Contents

Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, defined by three cumulative criteria: the seriousness of the disease (e.g., heavy disabling or life-threatening diseases) to be treated; the absence or insufficiency of an appropriate alternative therapeutic approach; and anticipation of high therapeutic benefit. In this circumstance, EMA ensures that the opinion of the CHMP is given within 150 days. There is also a conditional marketing authorization which allows for the early approval of a medicine on the basis of less complete clinical data than normally required, if the medicine addresses an unmet medical need and targets a seriously debilitating or life-threatening disease, a rare disease or is intended for use in emergency situations in response to a public health threat. The benefit to public health must outweigh the risk due to the limited availability of clinical data at the time of marketing authorization.

The EMA has recently been conducting a pilot on ‘adaptive pathways’ — an iterative process building on existing regulatory processes involving gathering evidence through real-life use to supplement clinical trial data.

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, NDAs or certain supplements to NDAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the drug is safe and effective. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

Also, under the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, sponsors submitting applications for product candidates intended for the treatment of adult cancer which are directed at molecular targets that the FDA determines to be substantially relevant to the growth or progression of pediatric cancer must submit, with the application, reports from molecularly targeted pediatric cancer investigations designed to yield clinically meaningful pediatric study data, using appropriate formulations, to inform potential pediatric labeling. The FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data under PREA and this requirement.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, or BPCA, provides NDA holders a six-month extension of any exclusivity — Orange Book listed patent or non-patent exclusivity — for a drug if certain conditions are met. Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, the FDA making a written request for pediatric studies, and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within the required timeframe. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory exclusivity period. Moreover, pediatric exclusivity attaches to all formulations, dosage forms, and indications for products with existing marketing exclusivity or Orange Book listed patent life that contain the same active moiety as that which was studied. Applications under the BPCA for labeling changes receive priority review designation, with all of the benefits that designation confers.

In the European Union all applications for marketing authorization for new medicines have to include the results of studies as described in an agreed pediatric investigation plan, unless the medicine receives a deferral or waiver. Medicines authorized across the EU with the results of studies from a pediatric investigation plan included in the product information are eligible for an extension of their supplementary protection certificate by six months. This is the case even when the studies’ results are negative. For orphan medicines, the incentive is an additional two years of market exclusivity.

Healthcare Reform

Enacted in 2010, the President of the United States signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which we refer to collectively as the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the pharmaceutical industry. The Affordable Care Act is a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes

Table of Contents

and fees on the healthcare industry, and impose additional health policy reforms, all intended to reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending.

Among the Affordable Care Act’s provisions of importance to the pharmaceutical industry are the following:

There have also been changes to Medicare and Medicaid regulations applicable to pharmaceutical manufacturers. For example, in 2016, CMS finalized a comprehensive rule implementing Affordable Care Act changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program.

Table of Contents

In addition, other legislative changes have been adopted since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. For example, under the Budget Control Act of 2011, providers are subject to Medicare payment reductions of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013. While President Biden previously signed legislation to eliminate this reduction through the end of 2021, recent legislation will restart the reductions, which will thereafter remain in effect through 2031 unless additional Congressional action is taken. Such new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on our customers and accordingly, our financial operations. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective January 1, 2019, increased manufacturer liability for Medicare Part D covered prescriptions in the period of the coverage gap from 50 percent to 70 percent. The Affordable Care Act was amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to repeal the individual penalty for not purchasing health insurance, and the Affordable Care Act may be further repealed and replaced by Congress. Changes in the law may result in additional downward pressure on coverage and the price that we receive for any approved product, or may require increased manufacturer rebates, and could seriously harm our business.

Pricing, Coverage and Reimbursement

The government is increasingly focused on measures to contain program costs for prescription drugs. Specifically, there have been recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, penalize companies that do not agree to cap prices paid for certain drugs, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. On November 27, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing a Most Favored Nation payment model under which reimbursement for certain Medicare Part B drugs and biologicals will be based on a price that reflects the lowest per capita Gross Domestic Product-adjusted (GDP-adjusted) price of any non-U.S. member country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with a GDP per capita that is at least sixty percent of the U.S. GDP per capita. This rule now has been rescinded, but similar programs have been included in current proposed legislation. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. Various state health care programs similarly require reporting of drug pricing information that is used as the basis for their reimbursement of pharmacies and other health care providers and the negotiation of supplemental rebates. Several states, such as California, have also enacted transparency laws that require manufacturers to report price increases and related information, and cap price increases, or require negotiation of supplemental rebates for new drugs entering the market at price points determined to be high. Refusal to negotiate supplemental rebates can negatively affect market access and provider reimbursement. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. In addition, it is possible that there will be further legislation or regulation that could harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

In the US, many independent third-party payers, as well as the Medicare and state Medicaid programs, reimburse buyers of pharmaceutical products. Medicare is the federal program that provides health care benefits to senior citizens and certain disabled and chronically ill persons. Medicaid is the federal program administered by the states to provide health care benefits to certain indigent persons. In return for including our pharmaceutical commercial products in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, we may need to agree to calculate and report certain price points to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and pay a rebate to state Medicaid agencies that provide reimbursement for those products products in an outpatient setting. We will also have to agree to sell our commercial products under contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Public Health Service, and Indian Health Service, as well as certain hospitals, community health centers, clinics, and other providers that are designated as 340B covered entities (entities designated by federal programs to receive mandatory drug discounts under the 340B program) at prices that are significantly below the price we may charge to commercial pharmaceutical distributors. These programs and contracts are highly regulated and may impose restrictions on our business, including ceiling prices and penalties for price increases that exceed the rate of inflation. These and any additional healthcare reform measures could further constrain our business or limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in additional pricing pressures. Failure to comply with these regulations and restrictions could result in a loss of our ability to continue selling our drugs to the federal government or receiving reimbursement for our drugs once approved.

Table of Contents

Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. In the European Community, governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular drug candidate to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for dug products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements of our products.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable in whole or in part under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some business arrangements from prosecution, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exemption or safe harbor. With respect to the safe harbors, HHS recently promulgated a regulation that is effective in two phases. First, the regulation excludes from the definition of “remuneration” limited categories of (a) PBM rebates or other reductions in price to a plan sponsor under Medicare Part D or a Medicaid Managed Care Organization plan reflected in point-of sale reductions in price and (b) PBM service fees. Second, effective January 1, 2023, the regulation expressly provides that rebates to plan sponsors under Medicare Part D either directly to the plan sponsor under Medicare Part D, or indirectly through a pharmacy benefit manager will not be protected under the anti-kickback discount safe harbor. Recent legislation delayed implementation of the second portion of the rule until January 1, 2026, and further proposed legislation would permanently prohibit implementation of the rule beginning in 2026. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from federal Anti-Kickback Statute liability. The reach of the Anti-Kickback Statute was broadened by the Affordable Care Act, which, among other things, amends the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Pursuant to the statutory amendment, a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the Affordable Care Act provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a per se false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act (discussed below) or the civil monetary penalties statute, which imposes penalties against any person who is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal healthcare program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

The federal civil False Claims Act prohibits any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government, knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government or avoiding, decreasing, or concealing an obligation to pay money to the federal government. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. The civil False Claims Act authorizes imposition of treble damages and a civil penalty for each false claim submitted, which, for pharmaceutical products, have frequently resulted in multi-million dollar penalties. Claims under the civil False Claims Act may be brought by the government or private parties on behalf of the government, called “qui tam” actions, which may proceed even if the government does not join as a party.

The civil False Claims Act has been used to assert liability on the basis of kickbacks and other improper referrals, improperly reported government pricing metrics such as Best Price or Average Manufacturer Price, improper use of Medicare provider or supplier numbers when detailing a provider of services, improper promotion of off-label uses not

Table of Contents

expressly approved by the FDA in a product’s label, and allegations as to misrepresentations with respect to products, contract requirements, and services rendered. In addition, private payers have been filing follow-on lawsuits alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, although establishing liability and damages in these cases is more difficult than under the FCA. Intent to deceive is not required to establish liability under the civil False Claims Act. Rather, a claim may be false for deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information provided or for acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of that information. If the government decides to intervene in a qui tam action and prevails in the lawsuit, the individual will share in the proceeds from any damages, penalties or settlement funds. If the government declines to intervene, the individual may pursue the case alone. The civil FCA provides for treble damages and a civil penalty for each false claim, such as an invoice or pharmacy claim for reimbursement, which can aggregate into tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars. For these reasons, since 2004, False Claims Act lawsuits against biopharmaceutical companies have increased significantly in volume and breadth, leading to several substantial civil and criminal settlements, as much as $3.0 billion, regarding certain sales practices and promoting off label uses. Civil False Claims Act liability may further be imposed for known Medicare or Medicaid overpayments, for example, overpayments caused by understated rebate amounts, that are not refunded within 60 days of discovering the overpayment, even if the overpayment was not caused by a false or fraudulent act.

HIPAA created new federal criminal statutes that prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. The Affordable Care Act amended the intent requirement of certain of these criminal statutes under HIPAA so that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute, or the specific intent to violate it, to have committed a violation. Further, the government may prosecute conduct constituting a false claim under the criminal False Claims Act. The criminal False Claims Act prohibits the making or presenting of a claim to the government knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent and, unlike the civil False Claims Act, requires proof of intent to submit a false claim. Also, many states have fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that are similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

The Affordable Care Act further created new federal requirements for reporting, by applicable manufacturers of covered drugs, of information related to payments and other transfers of value made to or at the request of covered recipients, such as, but not limited to, physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse midwives and certified registered nurse anesthetists and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family. Payments made to physicians and certain research institutions for clinical trials are included within the ambit of this law.

In addition, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act, and its implementing regulations, imposes requirements relating to the privacy, security, breach notification, and transmission of individually identifiable health information, known as protected health information. Among other things, the HITECH Act makes HIPAA’s security and certain privacy standards directly applicable to “business associates” — persons or organizations, other than a member of a covered entity’s workforce, that create, receive, maintain, or transmit protected health information on behalf of a covered entity for a function or activity regulated by HIPAA. The HITECH Act also strengthened the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and individuals, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. HIPAA also imposes requirements with respect to disclosures of protected health information for research purposes, such as clinical trials. In addition, state laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act, govern the privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not be preempted by HIPAA. In 2023, new state privacy laws will become effective in California, Colorado and Virginia, further complicating privacy compliance efforts. In addition, more onerous foreign data privacy provisions may apply. For instance, the EU General Data Protection Regulation imposes stricter rules on the processing of personal

Table of Contents

data than apply in the USA and its provisions exclude the export of data relating to identifiable individuals to most countries, including the US, unless certain safeguards are in place.

In the United States, our activities are potentially subject to additional regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, other divisions of HHS (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the DOJ and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments. If a drug product is reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid, pricing and rebate programs must comply with, as applicable, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 as well as the Medicaid rebate requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, or the OBRA, and the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, each as amended. Among other things, the OBRA requires drug manufacturers to calculate and report complex pricing metrics used to determine rebates paid on prescription drugs to state Medicaid programs. Under the Veterans Health Care Act, or VHCA, drug companies are required to offer “covered drugs” (including all drugs approved under an NDA) at no more than a statutory ceiling price, calculated based on a manufacturer’s required price calculations, to four federal agencies including the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and DoD, the Public Health Service. Also under the VHCA, manufacturers are required to offer drugs for sale at no more than a separate statutory ceiling price calculated by the manufacturer to Public Health Service designated entities in order to participate in other federal funding programs including Medicaid. Legislation subsequent to the VHCA has required that certain discounted prices under the VHCA also be offered for specified DoD purchases for its TRICARE program via a rebate system. Participation under the VHCA requires submission of pricing data and calculation of discounts and rebates pursuant to complex statutory formulas, as well as the entry into government procurement contracts governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of available statutory and regulatory exemptions, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including criminal and significant civil monetary penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of pre-marketing product approvals, private “qui tam” actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government, suspension or debarment prohibiting us from participating in federal procurement and non-procurement transactions, including government contracts, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any of our products are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws, and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of pharmaceutical products in a state, including, in some states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to, among other things, establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, and/ or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing specified physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit other specified sales and marketing practices. Additionally, some states have enacted laws that cap increases in prices charged for drugs in that state. All of our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

In Europe, most countries have laws or (more commonly) codes of practice which broadly emulate US ‘sunshine laws’ and require companies to maintain and publish a record of transfers of value to healthcare professionals. These are in addition to national anti-corruption laws similar to the FCPA — for instance the UK Bribery Act 2010 which has a wider scope than the FCPA in many respects including in that it covers relevant decision makers in both the private and public sectors and applies both domestically and internationally.

Table of Contents

Human Capital

We believe that our success is largely dependent upon our ability to attract and retain qualified employees. As of December 31, 2021, we had 15 employees (14 of which were full-time employees), in addition to several consultants or independent contractors working for us. We are not party to any collective bargaining arrangements and consider our relations with our employees to be good. Although we believe that the size of our current workforce is appropriate to achieve our objectives, we may hire additional employees with specialized expertise as we continue to grow our business. We believe that we have been successful to date in attracting skilled and experienced scientific and business professionals.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated in Delaware in December 1998. Our principal executive offices are located at 12 Penns Trail, Newtown, PA 18940 and our telephone number is (267) 759-3680. Our website address is www.onconova.com. The information contained in, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of this report.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

You should carefully consider the following risk factors together with the other information contained in this Annual Report, including our financial statements and the related notes appearing in this report. We cannot assure you that any of the events discussed in the risk factors below will not occur. If any of the following risks actually occur, they may materially harm our business and our financial condition and results of operations. In this event, the market price of our securities could decline and your investment could be lost. You should understand that it is not possible to predict or identify all such risks. Consequently, you should not consider the following to be a complete discussion of all potential risks or uncertainties.

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

Our product development efforts may not be successful.

The focus of our development efforts is currently on narazaciclib and oral rigosertib. Although, we believe that there are opportunities for us to develop narazaciclib, our novel multi kinase inhibitor targeting CDK4/6 as well as other tyrosine kinases, in indications such as metastatic breast cancer, mantle cell lymphoma and multiple myeloma, and oral rigosertib in RAS mutated cancers, clinical drug development is expensive, can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Even if our clinical development programs are successful, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product. There can be no assurance that our focus on narazaciclib and oral rigosertib will be successful, and that we will be able to successfully develop a product candidate or, even if we do, that we will be able to successfully commercialize such candidate.

Our future success is dependent primarily on the regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any product candidate for a target indication, we must demonstrate with substantial evidence gathered in preclinical and well-controlled clinical studies and, with respect to approval in the United States, to the satisfaction of the FDA, that the product candidate is safe and effective for use for that target indication and that the manufacturing facilities, processes and controls are adequate. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates in one or more jurisdictions, we may not be able to obtain sufficient funding or generate sufficient revenue to continue the development of our product candidates.

Table of Contents

The results of preclinical testing or earlier clinical studies are not necessarily predictive of future results. Any product candidate we advance into clinical trials may not have favorable results in later-stage clinical trials or receive regulatory approval.

Encouraging results in preclinical testing and earlier clinical studies do not ensure that later clinical trials will generate adequate data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of an investigational drug. Additionally, mechanisms of action, studies in small or single patient populations, and interim study results may not be predictive of later stage studies. The development of a product for one indication may further impact its development for other indications. By example, our phase III study of intravenous rigosertib for HR MDS did not meet its primary endpoints. It is possible that this may impact how regulators or others view the development of rigosertib for alternative indications. If later-stage clinical trials do not produce favorable results, our ability to achieve regulatory approval for any of our product candidates may be adversely impacted.

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome.

We may experience delays in our ongoing or future clinical trials and we do not know whether planned clinical trials will begin or enroll subjects on time, need to be redesigned or be completed on schedule, if at all. Regulatory authorities may also find that our development programs do not support product approval. There can be no assurance that the FDA, an IRB, or a comparable foreign regulatory authority will permit our clinical trials to commence and will not put clinical trials of any of our product candidates on clinical hold in the future. Study results may also cause us to discontinue trials. Clinical trials may be delayed, suspended or prematurely terminated and development programs may not be successful for a variety of reasons, including:

● failure to follow the study procedures or applicable regulatory requirements;

● negative or ambiguous study results;

● manufacturing or product quality issues;

● the need to conduct additional development work, including clinical trials;

If we experience delays in the completion or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. In addition, many of the factors that could cause a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.

Table of Contents

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following any marketing approval.

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authority.

As a result of undesirable side effects or safety or toxicity issues that we may experience in our clinical trials, we may not receive approval to market any product candidates, which could prevent us from ever generating revenues or achieving profitability. Results of our trials could reveal an unacceptably high severity and prevalence of side effects. In such an event, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. These side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. They could also result in restrictive labeling for any approved products.

Failure to follow FDA’s applicable regulatory requirements may result in enforcement action.

If we or our third party contractors are not able to follow FDA’s regulatory requirements, we or they may face enforcement actions that may materially harm our business, including, but not limited to:

● injunctions, penalties, fines, or debarment;

● adverse publicity.

Changes in product candidate manufacturing or formulation may result in additional costs or delay.

As product candidates are developed through preclinical studies to late-stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods and formulation, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. During the course of a development program, sponsors may also change the contract manufacturers used to produce the product candidates. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of clinical trials. Such changes may also require additional testing, FDA notification, or FDA approval. This could delay completion of clinical trials; require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or studies, or the repetition of one or more clinical trials; increase clinical trial costs; delay approval of our product candidates; and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue.

Healthcare legislation, including potentially unfavorable pricing regulations or other healthcare reform initiatives, may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and affect the prices we may obtain.

The regulations that govern, among other things, marketing approvals, coverage, pricing and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country and our ability to commercialize any products will depend, in part, on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for our products is available. In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, including the European Union, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory

Table of Contents

changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, limit coverage and reimbursement or restrict the prices we may charge including through payments of increased manufacturer rebates, and affect our ability to successfully sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Furthermore, in the United States private payors often follow Medicare coverage policies and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. These and any additional healthcare reform measures in the United States, the European Union and other potentially significant markets could further constrain our business or limit the amounts that governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in additional pricing pressures.

States, in the U.S., have also enacted laws requiring pharmaceutical companies to, among other things, establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, cap price increases, negotiate or pay increased supplemental rebates and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing specified physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit other specified sales and marketing practices.

Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product candidate in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, which could negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that particular country. In the United States, Medicaid and other federal programs impose penalties for increasing prices over the rate of inflation, which can result in penny prices. Federal legislative proposals would create inflation penalties under certain federal government pricing programs that currently do not impose these penalties and alter the caps on the magnitude of inflation penalties paid under these programs. Some states such as California are also regulating price increases. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval. We cannot be sure that timely coverage and adequate reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of coverage and reimbursement will be.

In the event that any of our partners fails to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may not accept the data that they generate in furtherance of our marketing applications, and they or us could be subject to enforcement action. In addition, any decision by our partners to terminate these agreements could also damage our reputation and negatively impact our ability to obtain financing from other sources.

Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could cause significant liability for us and harm our reputation.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct, including intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations or similar regulations of comparable foreign regulatory authorities, provide accurate information to the FDA, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, comply with manufacturing standards we have established, comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations and similar laws and regulations established and enforced by comparable foreign regulatory authorities, comply with FDA’s laws and regulations, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of conduct for our directors, officers and employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Table of Contents

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do.

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We face competition with respect to our current product candidates and will face competition with respect to any product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of products for the treatment of certain disease indications for which we are developing our product candidates. For example, large pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly successfully market commercialized CDK 4/6 inhibitors palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib and have done so for a number of years. More recently, G1 Therapeutics secured FDA approval of the CDK 4/6 triaciclib for the prevention of myelosuppression following chemotherapy.

The approved CDK 4/6 inhibitor drugs palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib are well established therapies or products and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors. By the time narazaciclib possibly is approved in the future, insurers and other third-party payors may also encourage the use of generic products. This may make it difficult for us to achieve market acceptance at desired levels in a timely manner to ensure viability of our business.

More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their greater size, cash flows and institutional experience. Compared to us, many of our competitors may have significantly greater financial, technical and human resources.

If we breach our license agreements or fail to negotiate new agreements pertaining to our product candidates, we could lose the ability to continue the development and potential commercialization of these product candidates.

If we fail to meet our obligations under our current license agreements or if we fail to negotiate future license agreements, our rights under the licenses could be terminated, and upon the effective date of such termination, our right to use the licensed technology would terminate. While we would expect to exercise all rights and remedies available to us, including attempting to cure any breach by us, and otherwise seek to preserve our rights under the patents and other technology licensed to us, we may not be able to do so in a timely manner, at an acceptable cost or at all. Any uncured, material breach under the license agreement could result in our loss of exclusive rights and may lead to a complete termination of our product development and any commercialization efforts for the applicable product candidates.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to limit commercialization of any products that we may develop.

TRAW US Equity

TRAW · 10-K · period ended 2021-12-31

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

TRAW US Equity☆

TRAW · 10-K · period ended 2021-12-31

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

TRAW US Equity